OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN-MINDANAO v.

MARTEL
and GUIÑARES
G.R. No. 221134. March 1, 2017.
SECOND DIVISION

The Office of the Governor of Davao Del Sur requested the

acquisition of five (5) service vehicles. The procurement of the
five (5) vehicles was not subjected to a public bidding, but
immediately effected through direct purchase, as approved by
the members of the Provincial Bids and Awards Committee
(PBAC), which included Martel and Guiñares. The Ombudsman
found them guilty of grave misconduct and gross neglect of duty
for improperly resorting to direct purchase, completely
disregarding the required public bidding. The CA affirmed the
decision of the Ombudsman, however, it lowered the penalty
imposed on Martel and Guiñares from dismissal to one (1) year
suspension without pay, opining that the length of service of
Martel and Guiñares warranted a mitigated penalty.

Is the CA correct in considering the length of service of

Martel and Guinares as a mitigating circumstance?

No. Length of service does not justify mitigation of penalty.

It is not a magic phrase that, once invoked, will automatically be
considered as a mitigating circumstance in favor of the party
invoking it. Length of service can either be a mitigating or
aggravating circumstance depending on the factual milieu of each
case. Length of service, in other words, is an alternative
circumstance.

https://cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/62667?
s_params=T2BfLPELEQ6cMnRrkmyj